Yankees Need the South

Yankees Need the South

Thomas Allen

Yankees need the South and Southerners, but Southerners do not need Yankees. Furthermore, Southerners are better off without Yankees. 

Yankees are extremely self-righteous, arrogant, hypocritical, greedy, disagreeable, and bossy. They possess the typical Puritan attitude: they lust to remake America and the world into the perfect image of themselves. (For more descriptions of the Yankee, see “The Yankee,” “The Puritan Yankee,” and “Cusson’s Description of the Yankee” by Thomas Allen.)

Although many Northerners are not real Yankees, many, unfortunately, have become Yankeefied. Likewise, many scalawag Southerners have become Yankeefied. (Most governors of Southern States have been Yankeefied: Examples are Nikki Haley of South Carolina and Roy Cooper of North Carolina. Two recent Southern governors are real Yankees: George Bush and Jeb Bush.)

Because of their need for Southerners, Yankees could not let the South go in 1861 and cannot let them go today. Furthermore, Yankees believe that the solution to America’s problems is to rule the South with an iron fist.

Yankees have a psychological need for the “Lost Cause” of the Confederacy.  Could it be that Yankees know in their hearts that the leaders of the Confederacy were morally and ethically superior to Lincoln and the leaders of the North? Yankees needed and still need the “Myth of the Lost Cause” to reassure themselves that Southerners were and still are fiendish, diabolical, and abominable to justify their power, privilege, and amour propre.

Being void of virtue, Yankees need to steal virtue from others. Since the South is part of the American empire, stealing virtue from the South is convenient and easy. Thus, every good thing that comes out of the South is not really Southern; it is American, i.e., Northern, especially New England.

Moreover, Yankees need to belittle Southerners to feed their self-esteem. Without having Southerners to disparage, Yankees would be nothing. Thus, Yankees view themselves as righteous and Southerners as evil.

Although Yankees have lure and ideology, Yankeedom has no civilization; they have no culture. Therefore, they need the South to provide them with a culture.

Sanctimonious Yankees need Southerners so that they can have someone to whom feel superior. Condemning the South gives Yankees a sense of identity and importance because they feel superior to Southerners.

Additionally, Yankees need a scapegoat to blame for their sins and failures.  Being part of the American empire makes the South a convenient scapegoat. Consequently, every undesirable thing that happens in the North, such as racial strife in Northern cities, results from the sins of the South. Yankees blame Southerners for the racial hatred and social pathologies in the North. Moreover, they blame Southerners for the evil that Yankees have caused. Thus, all economic, social, and psychological problems are the fault of Southerners. Needing someone to blame for their failures, Yankees blame Southerners.

No Yankee is going to let the truth detour his hatred of and hostility toward Southerners, whether they are reconstructed or remain unreconstructed.

Appendix

In America, two primary branches of Protestantism compete with each other. They are the Yankee religion and the Southern religion.

The Yankee religion is Calvinist and Puritan, that is, disciplined, communal, and focused on the purification of the community. It places evil in the object, e.g., drugs, guns, and the living environment. Thus, it seeks power and stresses social improvement. Being on the right side of history is a personal virtue. Out of the Yankee religion have come abolitionism, millennialism, progressivism, prohibition, feminism, the civil rights movement, neoconservatism, political correctness, social justice, wokeism, and Antifa. Furthermore, it is the parent of the the concept of "the city on the hill.”  Usually, the sermons of the Yankee religion are on current events.

The Southern religion is spiritually Anglican, although it is not structurally Anglican. That is, it is folkish and focuses on the individual and his soul. It places evil in the hearts of men. Thus, it seeks sanctification and manifests in a person’s private life, and goes unnoticed by intellectuals and historians. It stresses faith and piety with the notion of a Christian gentleman. A virtuous person is valuable to his fellow man. Usually, the sermons of the Southern religion are on salvation.

The Yankee religion represents worldly power and prestige more than does the Southern religion.

Reference

Wilson, Clyde N. Defending Dixie: Essays in Southern History and Culture. Second edition. Columbia, South Carolina: Stonewall Publishing LLC: 2005, 2025.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

Some Observations Pertaining to Race

Some Observations Pertaining to Race

Thomas Allen

 

Discussed below are the option of racial separation, the social construct of the races, school integration, and the future of the American Negro.

Many Whites are racial nihilists and pretend to be Negrophiles. (One cannot be a racial nihilist and at the same time be a Negrophile. A racial nihilist claims that race is irrelevant, while a Negrophile claims to love Negroes, which requires the relevancy of Negroes.) In reality, White racial nihilists hate Whites and have no qualms about annihilating the American Negro if their annihilation results in the genocide of Whites.

Racial Separation Is Not an Option

In “Mamdani’s Commie Housing Official Is a Lunatic,” January 7, 2026, (https://amac.us/newsline/politics/mamdanis-commie-housing-official-is-a-lunatic/?utm_objective=website_traffic&dderh=4b6c02be5961e5a13b9d052b0611dda2), the author wrote, “There are many policy options available to the voters of this country, but communism and racial separation are not among them.” If racial separation is a policy option not available to the voters of this country, then racial amalgamation is the policy forced on the country. Racial amalgamation is genocide of the races, as the races cease to exist when amalgamated. Why does this author hate the American Negro so much that he wants to genocide them? (See “Miscegenation Is Genocide” by Thomas Allen.)

Furthermore, the author writes, “This is not a communist country, and our system is not compatible with communism’s demands.” For a country that is not communist, the United States have gone a long way toward implementing the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto. The United States have adopted about 80 percent of these planks (five fully and five partially). The country may not be a fully communist country, but it is almost there. (See “Are the United States a Communist Country?” by Thomas Allen.)

Are the Races Social Constructs?

Many left-wingers and brainwashed right-wingers who want to be politically correct claim that the human races are social constructs and do not exist biologically. If the human races are social constructs, how can dogs distinguish a Black person from a White person without ever seeing the person? Furthermore, bacteria, which know even less about human racial constructs than do dogs, can distinguish a Black person from a White person. Different odor-causing bacteria grow on Blacks than grow on Whites. For this reason, dogs can differentiate between the races.

Furthermore, and even more shockingly, computers can identify a person’s race from medical images. Computers must be identifying some kind of biological features that distinguish one social construct race from another, which means that races are biological rather than social constructs. (Rachel Gordon, "Artificial intelligence predicts patients' race from their medical images/' MIT News, May 20, 2022:[https://news.mit.edu/2022/artificial-intelligence-predicts-patients-race-from-medical-images-0520] and “AI recognition of patient race in medical imaging: a modelling study” [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35568690/].)

Amazingly, the blood (see “Of One Blood” by Thomas Allen) and skeletons (see “Skeleton Differences of Human Races”) of these socially constructed races differ. Even more amazingly, they differ in nonphysical characteristics. (See “Nonphysical Racial Differences” by Thomas Allen.) 

Miraculously, socially constructed races correspond almost perfectly with biological races — both physically and physiologically. It must be one of those great, inexplicable coincidences.

School Integration

Northerners and especially Yankees supported school integration in the South primarily for two reasons. First, they, especially Yankees, supported it because they hated Southerners and wanted to use Blacks to destroy them and their way of life. Second, they wanted to keep Blacks where they belonged — in the South. If they integrated schools in the South but not in the North, fewer Blacks would migrate to the North. (Initially, federal integration laws were written to apply only where segregation was statutory [in the South] and not where segregation was customary [in the North]. Unfortunately for the North, judges started doing what they always do and ignored the parts of the law with which they disliked and started applying integration laws in the North.) Almost no Northerners, especially Yankees, were concerned about the welfare of Blacks. Blacks were merely weapons to destroy the South. Now, the monster that they created is destroying all of White America, as Whites have become second-class citizens in the country that they created.

Future of the American Negro

When Hispanics allied with East Asians and South Asians reach critical mass, Whites will, most likely, remain second-class citizens. However, Blacks will be demoted to fifth-class citizens. Unfortunately for Blacks, they will not be able to control this alliance with false guilt, as they have controlled Whites. The typical Hispanic, East Asian, and South Asian has less use for Blacks than the stereotypical Klansman.

Under White supremacy, Blacks were at least allowed on the bus, although they were usually restricted to the rear of the bus. Under the nonwhite-nonblack supremacy, they may not even be allowed on the bus.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

America’s Medical System

America’s Medical System

Thomas Allen

The main reason the United States have a drug-oriented (allopathic) medical system results from Yankeedom, which values power and wealth above all else, defeating and overthrowing the South, which valued family, land, and the natural order.

Following the publication of the Flexner Report in 1910, medical schools began closing, until nearly all schools that did not teach allopathic medicine ceased to exist. In 1908, the Carnegie Foundation commissioned Abraham Flexner, who was an educator with no medical training, to review American medical schools. The Flexner Report rejected all schools of medicine that did not follow the model promoted by the petrochemical-pharmaceutical industry (the Rockefeller interest). That model was the drug model, i.e., allopathy. Thus, the medical systems that it rejected included homeopathy, naturopathy, herbalism, and nutritional therapy.

Disease management through drugs and surgery is the essence of allopathy. Disease prevention with nutrition and root-cause treatment are abhorrent to it. The money is made through treating rather than curing.

Having invested heavily in the pharmaceutical industry, the Rockefellers, through the Rockefeller Foundation, began offering grants to medical schools that followed the Flexner model. Thus, the Rockefellers funded the medical educational system that promoted pharmaceutical drugs. Most schools that taught alternative treatment methods closed because of a lack of funds and accreditation. 

(One wonders if the Rockefellers had invested in electronics instead of petrochemicals, whether today’s medical system would have followed the Rife approach. The Rife system uses low-energy electromagnetic waves to treat diseases, each of which has its own frequency.)

Additionally, the Rockefellers gained control of the American Medical Association (AMA), which represented allopathic medicine, through funding from the Rockefeller Foundation. With Rockefeller money, the AMA persuaded States to grant it the authority to accredit medical schools and oversee licensure standards. As a result, only schools that taught allopathic medicine were accredited, and only doctors who practiced allopathic medicine were licensed. Consequently, America’s medical system came to support the Rockefeller pharmaceutical interest.

Now, if a doctor uses a treatment other than the approved allopathic treatment and the patient suffers an adverse outcome, the doctor faces a potential malpractice suit and professional sanctions. However, if the doctor prescribes an approved drug, even if it is harmful or ineffective, his action is legally defensible. He has followed the approved standard care and is, therefore, protected. Thus, following the protocol replaces independent treatment.

Moreover, with advertisements and sponsorships, pharmaceutical companies gained control of medical journals. Consequently, studies that support money-making drugs are published. However, studies that challenge the drug narrative are suppressed.

Furthermore, insurance companies reimburse treatment approved by the AMA. These treatments are primarily drugs, surgeries, and diagnostic tests. Seldom do they cover alternative treatments, even if they are safer and more effective than the recommended treatment. (Would not insurance companies save money if they covered the entire cost of an alternative treatment that is at least as effective as the standard allopathic treatment and required the patient to pay all costs above that if he chose the allopathic treatment?)

Health markers such as cholesterol and blood pressure are continuously lowered to enhance drug sales. Also, dietary standards are changed to increase drug sales — for example, replacing animal fats with seed and vegetable oils and discouraging the eating of eggs.

Because of the allopathic medical system, little progress has been made in cancer. The allopathic approach has prevented advancement beyond chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery (poison, burn, and cut) that were used decades before Nixon declared war on cancer. To protect the allopathic medical system, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) even declares that cancer cannot be cured and vigorously suppresses nonallopathic treatments — some of which are dietary. (Treating diseases is far more profitable than curing them.)

Yankeedom gaining complete control of the American medical system is one of the adverse consequences of the defeat of the South. Making money for pharmaceutical companies and medical equipment manufacturers is paramount. The welfare of the patient is secondary. The COVID-19 response supports this claim. To terrify the masses, what was the equivalent of a bad flu was elevated to a deadly pandemic that was going to devastate the world. Then, people were offered an ineffective “vaccine” that was deadlier than the virus, even to the point of many people being forced to take it. America’s medical system prevents innovation, some of which are simple.

The solution to America’s dysfunctional medical system is more competition and less governmental intervention. More competition means more than competition between various allopathic facilities. It means competition between various medical systems, such as homeopathy, naturopathy, herbalism, and nutritional therapy. Moreover, insurance companies should not discriminate between various medical systems. Governments should not pick winners and losers and should not subsidize healthcare. The only interference that governments need to perform is to prevent adulteration and fraud, such as false labelling, and to penalize those whose products kill or maim the user.  Neither licensing nor other governmental approval should be required to provide medical services. Furthermore, under the Constitution, all regulation of the medical industry belongs to the States; the federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate the medical industry. 

Reference

Mercola, Dr. Joseph. “Uncovering ‘The Big Secret’ About Medicine, Food, and the Power You Still Hold Analysis.” August 31, 2025.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles.

Beware of the Satanic Dream of Nimrod

Beware of the Satanic Dream of Nimrod

Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: This article was submitted in 1988 to the "Southern National Newsletter" of the Southern National Party.]

One of the greatest threats that faces the Caucasian-white (Aryan) Christian today is his ignorance of the dream of Nimrod. This ignorance has brought the South to the verge of destruction that it faces today.

The dream of Nimrod[1] is a universal brotherhood of man with its concomitant one-world government, economy, culture, religion, and race. The dream of Nimrod is the universal one-world state with its socialist economy and totalitarian government. (Whether this government is democratic, aristocratic, oligarchic, or autocratic in form matters little. By the nature of its objective, universal brotherhood, it would have to be totalitarian.) The society of Nimrod would have one culture, language, religion, and race. The difference among men could not be tolerated.

If you hear someone advocating or exalting a political system that consolidates and concentrates political power in the hands of the majority (democracy), which is often erroneously and euphemistically called the people, a particular class or faction (aristocracy), a small group (oligarchy), a particular religious order or sect (ecclesiarchy), or an individual (autocracy or monarchy), beware. You may be listening to someone possessed by the dream of Nimrod.

If you hear someone advocating or exalting communism, socialism, fascism, mercantilism, protectionism, welfare statism, or any other economic system where political power is used to transfer wealth from one group to another, beware. You may be listening to someone possessed by the dream of Nimrod.

If you hear someone advocating or exalting a social system that accepts racial integration, miscegenation, homosexualism, adultery, fornication, licentiousness, debauchery, governmental indoctrination of children (public education), human sacrifice (abortion and euthanasia), and other forms of moral degeneracy, beware. You may be listening to someone possessed by the dream of Nimrod.

If you hear someone advocating or exalting humanity while belittling the spiritual or advocating or exalting atheism, agnosticism, Gnosticism, animism, naturalism, Marxism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Calvinism, Unitarian Universalism, Quakerism, and other forms of secular humanism, paganism, pseudo-religion, or universal religion, beware. You may be listening to someone possessed by the dream of Nimrod.

That a person advocates one or more of the aforementioned positions does not necessarily mean that he is possessed by the dream of Nimrod. Nevertheless, the more consistent a person is in advocating these positions, the more likely that he is possessed. If a person advocates a political, economic, social, or religious system that resembles Nimrod’s, i.e., systems that concentrate and consolidate power and create uniformity, he is most likely possessed by the dream of Nimrod.

Most of today’s political, business, labor, social, and religious leaders, however, are possessed by the dream of Nimrod. They seek a satanic universal state with its one-world socialistic economy and government and its satanic society and culture of debauchery and licentiousness. They seek to destroy the Heavenly Father and His Christ.

The South is one of the few strongholds[2] of Caucasian-white [Aryan] Christians remaining in the world today. For this reason, those possessed by the satanic dream of Nimrod are diligently working to destroy the South. Only a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States can, with God’s help, save the South from the demonic dream of Nimrod. Only then will the Southern States be able to drive these modern-day Nimrods from among them. Only then will the Southern States be able to defend themselves from the dream of Nimrod and those possessed by his dream. Only then will the people of the South be able to live free and enjoy the liberties that God intended them to have. They would then become a beacon guiding their Caucasian-white [Aryan] brethren in Europe, the Soviet Empire, and the remainder of the Americas to throw off their oppressors.

Endnotes

1. Nimrod was the architect of the Tower of Babel. His goal was to rule the world and all mankind. Before God intervened, Nimrod was well on his way to establishing a universal state with one government, religion, culture, language, and race.

2. South Africa, especially the Afrikaner, is perhaps the only other stronghold of any significance remaining. This is why the world powers are trying to destroy South Africa with a race war and turn it into a Soviet colony. Unfortunately for the South African Whites, their “leaders” betrayed them. Now, the Afrikaner faces genocide as thorough as the genocide of the Indian tribes in the Americas, many of whom are now extinct. [Note: This article was written before the Afrikaners and other White South Africans were betrayed by their "leaders," who surrendered almost unconditionally to African Negroes.]

Copyright © 1988, 2025 by Thomas C. Allen.

More political articles.

Republicans, Democrats, and Populists

Republicans, Democrats, and Populists

Thomas Allen

Following Lincoln’s War, the Republicans used the Fourteenth Amendment and Fifteenth Amendment to debilitate the Democratic Party and destroy the South, which was the backbone of the Democratic Party. (Ironically, following World War II, both the Republicans and Democrats used them to destroy what remained of the South.) Before the Populists captured the Democratic Party following the last Cleveland administration, the South and the Democrats opposed most of the Republican Party’s policies and agendas.

Later, the Republican Party would use the Fourteenth Amendment to destroy the United States as a whole. (After World War II, Democrats joined the Republicans in using it to destroy the country.) This destruction began during the Eisenhower administration with the Warren Court. With the arrival of the Lyndon Johnson administration, the Democrats began surpassing the Republicans in bringing down the country and have now left the Republicans far behind in their mayhem.

In general, the Republican Party supported and mostly still supports a strong central government, government-business partnerships, mercantilism, protective tariffs,[1] internal taxes, corporate welfare, centralized banking, profligate spending, large-scale public works, growing federal debt, a large standing army, expansionism and imperialism, and a loose, expansive interpretation of the Constitution. It opposed States’ rights, free trade, and a limited, prudent, frugal federal government. Furthermore, it opposed State sovereignty and maintained, in practice, that sovereignty resides in those who really control the federal government. Hamilton is the forefather of the Republican Party.

On the other hand, the Democratic Party supported States’ rights, a small, limited federal government, little or no federal debt, free markets, free trade, tariffs for revenue only, decentralized banking with the States regulating banking, personal freedom, a strong emphasis on the Bill of Rights, and a strict interpretation of the Constitution. It opposed a strong centralized government, corporate welfare, protective tariffs, internal taxes, centralized banking, a large standing army, and a large federal debt. Moreover, it supported State sovereignty, i.e., “We the People” of each individual State were sovereign. Jefferson is the forefather of the Democratic Party. (By the time of the Wilson administration, the Democratic Party had abandoned Jefferson for Hamilton.  President Wilson was an admirer and imitator of Lincoln. Both were imperial presidents.[2])

During the Franklin Roosevelt administration, the Democratic Party became the image of the Republican Party. Most of the programs that Roosevelt adopted were extensions of Hoover’s programs. Following World War II, the Democratic Party became more Republican than the Republican Party. After the Republicans brought the country integration, affirmative action, and quotas, the Democrats pushed integration, miscegenation, and amalgamation with more vigor than did the Republicans.  Consequently, the Democratic Party promoted genocide of the White race with more ferocity than did the Republican Party. Additionally, the Democratic Party moved on to promote political correctness, wokeism, diversity-equity-inclusion, queerdom, and other perversions. Today’s Democratic Party is the logical conclusion of Lincoln’s Republican Party.

Ironically, today, the political philosophy of many rank-and-file Republicans is closer to that of the traditional Democratic Party than to the philosophy of the traditional and contemporary Republican Party.

In general, Populists agreed with the fundamental principles of the Republican Party. Their primary disagreement was that they wanted to use the power of the federal government to favor farmers and workers instead of big business. Like Progressives, they favored the envy-driven progressive income tax (the Sixteenth Amendment) and the direct election of US Senators (the Seventeenth Amendment), which weakened the States. Moreover, Populists favored cheap credit, cheap money (low-quality money), inflation, and cheating creditors by paying off debt with less valuable money. Unlike today’s Democrats and most Republicans, Populists want to restrict immigration.

Endnotes

1. Following World War II, the Republican Party abandoned advocating protective tariffs because most major American corporations had become international corporations. Protective tariffs no longer suited their needs. They wanted managed foreign trade. As a result, the Republican Party supported free trade agreements such as NAFTA, which USMCA replaced, and GATT, which managed trade to benefit multinational corporations.

2.  Like Lincoln, Wilson supported and promoted centralized banking and government-business partnerships — only Wilson was more fascist than Lincoln. Additionally, both had little regard for the Constitution of 1788, which they largely ignored. Furthermore, like Lincoln, Wilson suppressed free speech and imprisoned political opponents. Both were warmongers who led the country to an offensive war that could have easily been avoided. However, Lincoln had a more aggressive approach to the racial issue. While Lincoln wanted to ship Blacks out of the country, Wilson settled for segregating the races. Ironically, Glenn Beck ranks Lincoln as the best or second-best President and Wilson as the worst or second-worst president (Jackson is his rival). However, their similarities far outweigh their differences.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Carthage and the United States

Carthage and the United States

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1988 for the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party.]

[Since this article was written, the roles have been reversed. The United States are now Rome, and Russia is Carthage. Unlike disarmed Carthage, Russia possesses a large arsenal of nuclear weapons against which the United States seem to possess no defense. While Russia has a large-scale civil defense system to protect its civilians, the United States have none except for the oligarchs and high-ranking politicians and bureaucrats — it was abolished to appease the Soviet Union.]

As post-World War II history demonstrates, the United States are following the path that Carthage followed more than 2100 years ago. If the United States go the way of Carthage, the South will too, if it remains part of the present union.

By the second century B. C., the primary foreign policy of Rome had become the annihilation of Carthage, for Rome envied the prosperity of Carthage. After Rome defeated Carthage in the Second Punic War, Carthage agreed not to engage in war with any ally of Rome. If a Roman ally attacked Carthage, Carthage was to appeal to Rome to settle the dispute. Numidia, which was an ally of Rome, took advantage of Carthage’s predicament and attacked her. Carthage appealed to Rome to end the conflict. Rome resolved the conflict unfairly in favor of Numidia. The next time Numidia attacked Carthage, Carthage defended herself instead of appealing to Rome. She knew that Rome would not provide any aid or justice. Carthage feared that Rome would use this conflict as a pretext for war, and events soon proved her right. Fearing reprisal from Rome, Carthage sought appeasement. She inquired of Rome about the conditions necessary to secure peace. Rome demanded and received three hundred children of noble birth to hold as hostages. With the hostages in hand, Rome then demanded that Carthage surrender all weapons of war. Hoping to win Rome to clemency, Carthage complied. After the weapons were surrendered, Rome then demanded the city itself. The inhabitants were told that they could march ten miles inland and build a new city, but Carthage had to be destroyed. With this demand, Carthage finally realized the perfidy and baseness of her enemy. Without weapons, she prepared for war. The Carthaginians were able to manufacture enough weapons to resist the Roman siege for four years. In 146 B. C., Carthage finally fell to the Roman army. Rome utterly destroyed her. The city was burned and leveled. Carthage was no more.

Just as Rome’s foreign policy was to destroy Carthage, so is the Soviet Union’s foreign policy to destroy the United States. Ever since the days of Lenin, the foreign policy of the Soviet Union has been the destruction of the United States. Just as Rome expanded and absorbed all those around her, so has the Soviet Union. Following the path of Carthage, the United States have met the Soviet threat with appeasement. They seek to appease their Rome, the envious Soviet Union. With rhetoric, the United States mildly object to Soviet expansion. With deeds, they restrain and hamper those who seek to defend themselves from Soviet imperialism. Whereas Carthage was forced to prostrate herself before Rome as a result of defeat in war and entered into a one-sided treaty that favored Rome, the United States have voluntarily entered into one treaty after another that favors their enemy, the Soviet Union. The United States have entered into several arms-control treaties with the Soviet Union. However, the Soviet Union abides by these treaties only as long as it suits its purposes and ignores them when convenient. The United States abide by these treaties even if they have never been ratified. Now, the United States are going down the road of disarmament with a known liar and deceiver. Whereas Rome held only three hundred Carthaginians hostage, the Soviet Union is rapidly approaching the point where she will hold 240,000,000 Americans hostage. The Soviet Union has an effective civil defense and antimissile system. Yet, the United States have neither and are determined to acquire neither. The day may soon come when the Soviet Union will demand that the United States disarm themselves completely or be destroyed. If the United States resist, most likely war will result. If they do as Carthage did and disarm, they will perish as Carthage did. (Envy is a powerfully destructive force.) However, the United States will not have the luxury of rearming and making a last stand as Carthage did. Just as an envious Rome achieved her objective of obliterating prosperous Carthage, so will an envious Soviet Union achieve hers of obliterating the prosperous United States.

If the Southern States wish to avoid the fate of Carthage, they must separate from the present union. To remain part of the United States is to die. The United States no longer have the will to defend themselves. They desire only to appease their enemy. Only in an independent South can Southerners ever hope to build a civil defense and antimissile system to protect themselves from Soviet blackmail. Only in an independent South can Southerners ever hope to live in peace. The time has come for a free and independent confederation of Southern States.

As paradoxical as it may appear, an independent South may be the only way that the United States can be saved from the Soviet Union. An independent South would seek to defend itself from Soviet aggression and thus retard that aggression. Not only that, but the trauma of losing their Southern colonies may destroy the lethargy of the United States, force them to recognize their vulnerability and cause them to defend themselves from Soviet aggression, which would totally thwart her potential threats and prevent war.

[Fortunately, under President Reagan’s leadership, the United States woke up and thwarted the Soviet threat so greatly that the Soviet Union collapsed. Now, the Marxist mantle of destroying the United States has passed to China. However, Marxists within the United States are giving China stiff competition, which is un-Marxist, to bring down America. Like good Marxists, these American Marxists are destroying the history of the country by starting with the removal of anything about the Confederacy or the antebellum era. They push disarmament of the people and other Marxist laws to enslave Americans — many in the name of the war on terrorism. Unlike the United States, at least, traitors within her gates did not control Carthage.]

Copyright © 1988, 2025 by Thomas C. Allen.

More history articles.

Rothbard on Lincoln

Rothbard on Lincoln

Thomas Allen

In “Just War,” which is based on a talk given in May 1994 and posted in March 2012 (https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/whats-a-just-war/), Murray Rothbard gives an excellent description of Abraham Lincoln (Rothbard [1926-1995] was a libertarian economist of the Austrian School, economic historian, and political theorist. He was a proponent of  anarcho-capitalism and part of the post-World War II Old Right.)

The War for Southern Independence (Lincoln’s War) gave Lincoln the opportunity to invoke statist tyranny of reform liberalism — and he fervently took advantage of the opportunity. He overthrew States’ rights, which was the foundation of the Constitution of 1789, and the ownership of slaves (by making all Americans slaves of the oligarchs, although only a few realize that they are slaves). 

Lincoln’s “major emphasis was on Whig economic statism: high tariffs, huge subsidies to railroads, [and] public works.” Being a leading lawyer for the big railroads, he was the candidate of the big railroads.

Granville Dodge, an Iowa railroad entrepreneur, delivered the Iowa delegation to Lincoln at the Republican convention. As a reward, “Lincoln appointed Dodge to army general.” Dodge’s job was to drive the Indians from the path of the Union Pacific, “the country’s first heavily subsidized federally chartered transcontinental railroad.” Thus, “conscripted Union troops and hapless taxpayers were coerced into socializing the costs on constructing and operating the Union Pacific.”

Nevertheless, Lincoln’s chief focus was raising taxes — especially tariffs. During his administration, tariff rates greatly increased (consequently, he embargoed the importation of iron and steel). At the beginning of his administration, he was placatory about not interfering with slavery. However, he insisted on collecting tariffs at Southern ports.

“Lincoln was a master politician, which means that he was a consummate conniver, manipulator, and liar.” He deceived the South and maneuvered it into firing the first shot.  Thus, he made the South appear to be the aggressor. (He who causes the first shot starts the war, which is often not the one who fires the first shot.)

The Lincoln administration and the Republican-controlled Congress enacted most of the Whig economic programs. At least 10 tariff bills were enacted. Alcohol and tobacco were heavily taxed — “sin” taxes. An “income tax was levied for the first time in American history.” Also,  transcontinental railroads received large land grants and monetary subsidies. Moreover, “the government went off the gold standard and virtually nationalized the banking system to establish a machine for printing new money and to provide cheap credit for the business elite.”

Furthermore, Lincoln conscripted a huge army, jailed dissenters and peace advocates, and abolished habeas corpus.

Although Lincoln was not religious, “he adopted all the attitudes and temperament of his evangelical allies.” Personally, he opposed using alcohol and tobacco. Also, he “opposed the private carrying of guns.”

Moreover, he abandoned his fiancee, who came from a humble family, to marry Mary Todd, who was wealthy and whose family was friends of Henry Clay (shades of Newt Gingrich, who divorced his first wife when she was dying of cancer, but who fortunately survived, and divorced his second wife because she objected to sharing him with his mistress, who became his third wife). Further, he “refused to attend his dying father or his father’s funeral.”

Rothbard concludes his discussion of Lincoln by stating:

Lincoln, too, was a typical example of a humanitarian with the guillotine in another dimension: a familiar modern “reform liberal” type whose heart bleeds for and yearns to “uplift” remote mankind, while he lies to and treats abominably actual people whom he knew. And so Abraham Lincoln, in a phrase prefiguring our own beloved Mario Cuomo, declared that the Union was really “a family, bound indissolubly together by the most intimate organic bonds.” Kick your own family, and then transmute familial spiritual feelings toward a hypostatized and mythical entity, “The Union,” which then must be kept intact regardless of concrete human cost or sacrifice.

How can any self-respecting conservative idolize such a despicable charlatan as Lincoln? Nevertheless, they do. It makes one wonder if these Lincoln idolizers are really conservatives. They certainly are not constitutionalists, i.e., advocates of the Constitution of 1789 that the founding fathers gave us.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More historical articles.

Rothbard on Lincoln’s War

Rothbard on Lincoln’s War

Thomas Allen

In “Just War,” which is based on a talk given in May 1994 and posted in March 2012 (https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/whats-a-just-war/), Murray Rothbard explains that the War for Southern Independence (Lincoln’s War) was a just war on the part of the South and an unjust war on the part of the North. (Rothbard [1926-1995] was a libertarian economist of the Austrian School, economic historian, and political theorist. He was a proponent of anarcho-capitalism and part of the post-World War II Old Right.)

Rothbard states that “a just war exists when a people tries to ward off the threat of coercive domination by another people, or to overthrow an already-existing domination. A war is unjust, on the other hand, when a people try to impose domination on another people, or try to retain an already existing coercive rule over them.” He identifies two just wars that Americans fought: the American Revolution and the War for Southern Independence.

The South was trying to free itself from the North’s oppressive domination — therefore, a just war on the part of the South. On the other hand, the North was trying to maintain its dominance over the South — therefore, an unjust war on the part of the North.

Before Lincoln’s War, a chief principle of war was not to target civilians. Sherman, Sheridan, and other Northern generals targeted civilians. The Union army often looted and deliberately destroyed civilian property that had no military value. When Lee’s army invaded the North, he ordered his troops not to molest civilians.

Like Americans during the American Revolution, Southerners believed that sovereignty resided in the people. They delegated certain sovereign powers to the governing authority, and their delegation was voluntary and contractual. As such, they could withdraw that sovereignty anytime that the governing authority had violated its trust. Thus, government was a contractual arrangement — “consent of the governed.” Some divine hand from above did not impose it. When the 13 States, whose governments had been created by the people thereof, ratified the Constitution of 1789, they did not bind themselves perpetually to it or the Union formed under it. Being sovereign republics, they reserved the right to withdraw from the Union if they found that the government created by the Constitution continuously violated it.

After years of the federal government threatening and assaulting Southern institutions, the Southern States “exercise their natural, contractual, and constitutional right to withdraw, to ‘secede’ from that Union.” Then, as sovereign republics, they contracted with other Southern States to form the Confederate States of America. Thus, just as the American Revolution was just, so was the War for Southern Independence. For the same reasons that the American colonies seceded from the British Empire, so did the Southern States secede from the Union formed under the Constitution of 1789.

Just as the American colonies rebelled against “the taxing power: the systematic plunder of their property by the British government,” so did the Southern States rebel against the systematic plunder of their property by the federal government. A principal grievance of the South was the protective tariffs that the North had imposed. These tariffs were used to protect inefficient Northern industries. Consequently, they forced Southerners to pay higher prices for manufactured goods. Also, these tariffs threaten to reduce Southern exports. Moreover, the South paid most of the tariffs, and the North received most of the appropriations and monopolistic Northern industries.

Not only did most Northerners want to continue plundering the South via tariffs, but others, the Yankees, also wanted to purge the South and remake it in the Yankee image. Yankees had a Puritan mentality and were driven by postmillennialism. (Before Christ returns, “man must set up a thousand-year Kingdom of God on Earth.”) Consequently, Yankees must cleanse society of sin and create a perfect society. “Moreover, if you didn’t try your darndest to stamp out sin by force you yourself would not be saved.” Further, the coercive power of government was an essential tool in cleansing the world of sin. For these Yankees, sin was anything “which might interfere with a person’s free will to embrace salvation.” They were abolitionists and prohibitionists and opposed Catholicism. Governments must stamp out the evils of slavery, alcohol and tobacco, gambling, most entertainment, and Catholicism.[1] Thus, they promoted paternalistic government at the federal, State, and local levels.

Like most Northerners, Yankees promoted governmental paternalism in economic affairs. They supported “the Whig program of statism and big government: protective tariffs, subsidies to big business, strong central government, large-scale public works, and cheap credit spurred by government.”

Also, Yankees opposed personal liberties, States’ rights, minimal government, free markets, and free trade — the basic principles of the Democratic Party at that time. Consequently, they supported the Republican Party, which was the “party of great moral ideas,” i.e., the stamping-out of sin.

To the delight of the Yankees, “The Northern war against slavery partook of fanatical millennialist fervor, of a cheerful willingness to uproot institutions, to commit mayhem and mass murder, to plunder and loot and destroy, all in the name of high moral principle and the birth of a perfect world.” Thus, the North fought “to maintain their coercive and unwanted rule over” the South.

Then, Rothbard compares the British during the American Revolution to the North during Lincoln’s War. “The British, at least, were fighting on behalf of a cause which, even if wrong and unjust, was coherent and intelligible: that is, the sovereignty of a hereditary monarch.” What was the North’s excuse? It had no allegiance to a real, actual person like a king. Its allegiance was “to a nonexistent, mystical, quasi-divine alleged entity, ‘the Union.’” Unlike a king, one cannot evaluate a Union’s deeds, and the Union is accountable to no one. Thus, Northerners replaced the Union formed under the Constitution of 1789, which was “a contractual institution that can either be cleaved to or scrapped,” with “a divinized entity, which must be worshipped, and which must be permanent, unquestioned, all-powerful.”

Using the cause of “human rights,” modern-day supporters of Lincoln’s War support and glorify his war. Lincoln “goes forth and rights the wrong of slavery, doing so through mass murder, the destruction of institutions and property, and the wreaking of havoc which has still not disappeared.” Yet, all other countries ended slavery without war.

Endnote

1. Most of the sins on which Yankees focused were vices. (Vice sins are sins that injure the sinner and his family but do not generally injure others.) For the most part, they not only ignored but also often supported sins that injured others, such as homicide (offensive wars), looting the public treasury (subsidies), and forcing the common people to pay higher prices (tariffs), often for lower quality goods. Many frequently supported business dealings where merchants took advantage of ignorant customers. Most did not object to debtors cheating creditors with depreciating fiat money — then the two largest debtors were banks and governments. As for slavery, they objected to the ownership of slaves. However, they had little issue with transporting and selling slaves, as many Yankees became rich trafficking slaves. Moreover, when the Northern States emancipated slaves, most Yankees sold their slaves instead of freeing them.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern issues articles.

A Nullification That Failed

A Nullification That Failed

Thomas Allen

From the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s, the Southern States failed in their attempt to nullify federal acts that forced desegregation and integration, following the recommendations of Madison, which the Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) endorses. Not only did the Southern States dislike these acts,  but most of them were unconstitutional. 

In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the US Supreme Court based its desegregation ruling primarily on personal biases, sociology, and politics, with the US Constitution playing only an insignificant role. When Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment, it did not intend for it to apply to schools. Shortly after its ratification, Congress established a racially segregated school system for the District of Columbia.

According to TAC, Madison identified four appropriate methods that a State and “we the people” of that State could use to oppose and nullify an unconstitutional federal act or even a disliked federal act. A discussion of these four follows.

1. Popular protest by the people. “We the people” of a State may vigorously and vociferously protest against an unconstitutional or even disliked federal act. Southerners protested resolutely and vehemently against forced federal integration acts, but the federal government successfully suppressed their protest. Their protest did nothing more than bring more federal oppression and less liberty.

2. Refuse to cooperate with the federal government. Wholeheartedly, the Southern States not only refused to cooperate with the federal government, but they also interfered with its enforcement of federal integration acts. With great fervor, they opposed federal integration acts. Their disobedience and lack of cooperation did nothing except invigorate the federal government’s resolve to become more tyrannical and oppressive.

3. Formal protest by the governor. Few governors have ever protested unconstitutional acts of the federal government as did Governor Faubus of Arkansas and Governor Wallace of Alabama. All their protest did was cause the federal government to use military force against Arkansas and Alabama to quell their protest. Other governors protested, but to no avail. Their protest led to more subjection and despotism.

4. Legislative action. Legislative action includes resolutions formally protesting the federal government’s usurpation and unconstitutional acts. Legislatures may forbid agents of the State and its local governments from cooperating with the federal government in enforcing the federal act. It may even include interfering to prevent the federal government from enforcing an unconstitutional federal act. However, legislative action does not extend to preventing federal agents from enforcing unconstitutional federal acts with imprisonment or fines. State legislatures of the Southern States took actions to thwart the enforcement of federal integration acts, short of jailing federal agents. Again, the results were the same: more oppression, tyranny, and loss of liberty.

Madison believed that if adjoining States protested against a federal act and sought to nullify it with the aforementioned actions, their actions would cause the federal act to become void. Madison was wrong. The Southern States were unified in their protest of the federal government’s integration acts. Yet, their unity did nothing to stop the federal government’s tyranny.

The Southern States did not resort to jailing federal agents attempting to enforce school integration. However, this action would have also failed because the philosophy of "might makes right" dominated the country. (With the possible exceptions of the Cleveland, Harding, and Coolidge administrations, this philosophy has been the dominant governing principle of the federal government since 1861 — even superseding the Constitution.) Since the federal government used military force against Arkansas and Alabama in response to much milder forms of nullification, it would have used even greater force against a State that jailed its agents. (If a State had nullified these federal acts following Calhoun’s philosophy instead of Madison’s, these acts would not have applied in the nullifying States. Consequently, the federal government could not have lawfully used the military to enforce them because they did not exist in the nullifying States. However, since the federal government ceased following the Constitution in 1861, it would have used troops anyway.)

As a result of the Southern States’ failure to nullify the federal government’s integration acts, America’s education has deteriorated significantly. Worse, their defeat gave birth to racial quotas, political correctness, diversity-equity-inclusion, wokeism, and ultimately the death of the White race, Christianity, and Western Civilization. Such has been the goal of the Puritan Yankees since the mid-nineteenth century. Only the South stood in the way of this goal; that is why Lincoln and the Republicans had to destroy the South.

Madison may have wept over the utter defeat of the Southern States’ failure to nullify these unconstitutional federal acts. However, based on inferences from its writings, TAC has not.

However, the Southern States’ attempted nullification did lead to two of the three wars that the United States have won since World War II: Eisenhower’s war against Arkansas, Kennedy’s war against Alabama, and Reagan’s war against Grenada. Defeating these three world superpowers is the height of US military prowess in the post-World War II era.

Since Lincoln’s War, States have been highly successful at nullifying federal acts against vice, e.g., prohibition, which the Constitution authorized the federal government to prohibit the manufacturing, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors, and marijuana, which the federal government has no constitutional authority to outlaw or regulate. However, the nullification of most unconstitutional federal acts has been highly unsuccessful. The only nullifying acts that States are allowed are unenforceable protests and resolutions, and not participating with the federal government in enforcing federal laws (even this one seems to be fading under Trump).

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

The 1860 Presidential Election Caused the South to Seceded

The 1860 Presidential Election Caused the South to Secede

Thomas Allen, editor

In The United States Unmasked: A Search into the Causes of the Rise and Progress of These States, and an Exposure Of Their Present Material and Moral Condition (London, Ontario: J. H. Vivian, 1878), pages 92–94, G. Manigault explains how the 1860 presidential election led to the South seceding. He writes:

An election of President of the United States was to come on late in 1860, and the whole Union was greatly agitated by the canvass. The anti-slavery party chose for their candidate [Abraham Lincoln] an until lately obscure man — of little capacity or attainments, except as what is called a stump orator. He had a genius for diverting a rude Western crowd with funny stories and coarse witticisms. Some able speeches were delivered by him, but they were prepared by another man. His own serious efforts only proved his ignorance and shallowness. But he was popular in the great North-west, and was a man whom the party knew how to use for their purposes. Another party which expressly disclaimed for the Federal government any right to interfere with slavery in the States, but claimed for it the right to prohibit it in the common territories, nominated for their candidate an eminent Northwestern politician [Stephen A. Douglas], the zealous expounder of “Squatter Sovereignty.” A third party of no definite views, except peace at any price, brought out their candidate [John Bell]. And a fourth, consisting of the people of the Southern States and such people in the North as maintained the permanence and sanctity of the terms, on which the Union had been formed, and the limitations on the powers of the Federal government, nominated their candidate [John C. Breckinridge]. The result was that the anti-slavery party carried every Northern State, and the election — the fourth party carried every Southern State, and the other parties were nowhere.  

The people of the Southern States now found that they were living under a government completely in the hands of their enemies, utterly hostile to their rights and interests, and claiming a right not only to surround and hedge them out from all right in the common territories, and reduce them to complete and hopeless subjection, but to revolutionize their internal political and social organization. This was not the confederation into which they had entered; this was not the government which they had joined in creating. Unless they could submit to be revolutionized by external enemies, and become mere tributary provinces to them, it was high time to break off all connection with utterly faithless confederates, whom the most solemn treaty could not bind. The Southern States began to secede from the Union in rapid succession, and war was made upon the South to force them back into it.

More Southern articles.

The Effects of Tariffs on the South

The Effects of Tariffs on the South

Thomas Allen, editor

In The United States Unmasked: A Search into the Causes of the Rise and Progress of These States, and an Exposure Of Their Present Material and Moral Condition (London, Ontario: J. H. Vivian, 1878), pages 33–35, G. Manigault explains the effects of tariffs on the South.

Has the reader ever considered what is the origin and true nature of that offence which is called smuggling? Stealing, and robbery, and the destruction of your neighbour’s property, and a multitude of other acts, are crimes in their very nature, and were criminal before any human law undertook to punish them. But there is in nature no such offence as smuggling. An important ingredient in your natural liberty is the right to carry the proceeds of your industry, or any part of your portable property, to the best market you can find for it; and, when you have exchanged it for other commodities, you have naturally an equal right to carry your new acquisitions home with you. They are as much yours as that was, which you gave for them. These are the natural and justifiable acts out of which governments have manufactured the offence of smuggling. They create the crime by legislation; they provide for its punishment by further legislation. 

The United States affords a striking example of these abuses. The people of the Northern States, having a majority of the votes in Congress, they had, when united among themselves, the control of the government, and sought to use it to their exclusive profit. In raising a revenue for the government, they, by the ingenious arrangements of their tariff acts, threw the burden of taxation on the South. In expending that revenue they bestowed a benefit on the North. They lowered the value of Southern produce by impairing the foreigner’s means of paying for it; and they raised the price of Northern manufactures by shutting out the competition of foreign goods. They used the whole machinery of government as if it had been designed for impoverishing the South and enriching the North. 

This method of plundering the South met with earnest protest and strenuous opposition from that quarter; and the tariffs for revenue and protection underwent many fluctuations. The fact is, that there is an essential incompatibility between the two objects of revenue and protection. Just so far as a duty protects home manufacturers, it fails to yield any revenue; for it keeps out foreign goods: and just so far as a duty yields a revenue from foreign goods imported, it fails to afford protection to the home manufacturer. There were many people at the North, to whom the raising of a large revenue by the government was of vital interest, for they profited by its expenditures. They were opposed to duties so high as to cut off revenue from the government, while affording protection to the manufacturer, by shutting out the goods of his foreign competitor. The representatives of the Southern States, by combining with this class of plunderers, were more than once enabled to foil the measures of that worse class of plunderers, who advocated protective duties so high as to shut out foreign goods.

More Southern articles.

The South's Greatest Blunder

The South's Greatest Blunder

Thomas Allen, editor

In The United States Unmasked: A Search into the Causes of the Rise and Progress of These States, and an Exposure Of Their Present Material and Moral Condition (London, Ontario: J. H. Vivian, 1878), pages 100-102, G. Manigault identifies the South greatest blunder at the outbreak of Lincoln’s War:

The people of the South and their leaders committed many and great blunders. But we will only name one which we think the first and greatest of all. The politicians, urging on the people the necessity of seceding from the Union, universally pronounced secession to be a peaceful right. And so it was. The terms of the treaty which had united the States into a confederation having been grossly, repeatedly, and notoriously violated by the Northern States, to the injury of the Southern, any one or all of them had a right to declare the treaty null and void, and withdraw from the Union. This was a peaceful right and no act of hostility. But the politicians went beyond this and assured the people that secession would prove a peaceful remedy for their wrongs. This was as gross an absurdity as any man, calling himself a statesman could utter. The people of the Northern States had control of the Federal government and of all its powers and resources; they had been for years in the enjoyment of large contributions or rather tribute from the industry and fertility of the South; their prosperity had been largely, we think chiefly built upon these contributions, and must decline on their withdrawal. Now it is flying in the face of all history and all experience in human nature to suppose that any people or government, with large means of waging war, will abandon possession of rich tributary territories without first striving to retain them by force of arms. It matters not whether the tribute is the result of robbery or of right. They will fight rather than give it up. 

Some individuals in the South uttered earnest warnings that secession meant war, for it must lead to it; and urged prompt preparation for it. But they had not the ear of the people. If the South had any statesmen, their counsels were not heard amid the harangues of politicians; and the States which seceded went out of the Union, with the most flimsy preparations for maintaining in arms the step they had taken. The most important provisions made for defence were due to the foresight and activity of a few individuals.

More Southern articles. 

Three Facts About the South

Three Facts About the South

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are the States’ right of secession, music, and the South was right.

States’ Right of Secession

Nowhere does the Constitution deny a State the right to secede. Secession is not expressly stated in the Constitution because the States reserved that right in the Tenth Amendment. 

Each of the original 13 States had seceded twice when they ratified the Constitution of 1787. First, they had seceded from Great Britain, and then they seceded from the Union formed by the Articles of Confederation. That the States would deny themselves the right to secede from the Union formed by the Constitution of 1787 is absurd — especially since the Constitution did not expressly deny them this right. Even New York and Virginia declared in their ratification that they retained the right to secede. Further, the New England States claimed that they had the right to secede. Moreover, the Declaration of Independence asserted that the States (the colonies) had the right to secede. Thus, the Southern States had the right to secede in 1861.

Besides, when the States drafted the Constitution of 1787 and joined the federation created by that Constitution, they retained their sovereignty. (Because the States were republics and the Constitution guaranteed each State a republican form of government, the States could not surrender their sovereignty and still remain republics. [See “Returning Republican Governments to the States” by Thomas Allen.]) Sovereigns have the power to secede from any union or federation to which they have acceded.

When the Southern States seceded, they were merely exercising their right as sovereigns to leave the Union peacefully as the States did from the Union created by the Articles of Confederation. The Tenth Amendment guaranteed the right of secession.

For a more detailed discussion of a State’s right to secede, see Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States: Its Causes, Character, Conduct, and Results, volume 1, by Alexander H. Stephens, 1868.

Music

How long will it be before American music is outlawed? Why should American music be outlawed? Because, with rare exception, all neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, liberals, progressives, and libertarians are Dixiephobes. They loathe the South and Southerners. Therefore, they disdain everything Southern.

What does this have to do with music? All significant genres or styles of American music of any significance originated in the South. Thus, American music is the product of slavocracy, Jim Crow, White supremacy, and their descendants. Rock ‘n roll, jazz (including ragtime, boogie-woogie, Dixieland, and swing), blues, country, bluegrass, rhythm and blues, soul, funk, Tejano, Cajun, zydeco, gospel, spiritual, sacred harp, barbershop, and more are Southern. All of them came out of the South.

Because of their hatred of the South, neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, liberals, progressives, and libertarians seek to destroy everything that is Southern. Consequently, American music, which is really Southern music, must be destroyed. They have to destroy Southern music before it completely contaminates the virtues of Yankeedom.

(Reference: Daniel, Tom. “Academy of Southern Music.” Abbeville Institute: The Abbeville Blog, June 1, 2021. https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/bthe log/academy-of-southern-music/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=d073b88d-f677-448c-9c41-191b5e0c631f accessed June 2, 2021.)

The South Was Right

In “The Power of the Powerless” (November 4, 2020), James Rutledge Roesch provides an excellent description of the Puritan Yankee mentality that wars against the South, which proves that the South was right (https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/the-power-of-the-powerless/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=c24f9d1b-a791-4b69-be6a-ca8b5d96ed4b):

In the meantime, however, we can take some bittersweet solace in the fact that despite the sadistic iconoclasm against the symbols of the American South, the polarisation/radicalisation of American politics, the dysfunction of the American system of government, the corruption of the American party system, the degeneracy of American culture, and the disintegration of American society represents the ultimate vindication of the Southern critique of American millenarianism (i.e. “The City Upon A Hill” and “The Last, Best Hope for Mankind”), American gnosticism (i.e. “The More Perfect Union” and “The Indissoluble Union”), American teleocracy (i.e. “The Proposition Nation” and “The Redeemer Nation”), American hubris (i.e. “The Exceptional Nation” and “The Indispensable Nation”), and other Hebraic-Puritan “isms” and “ologies” from the Left and the Right to which our compatriots up north have proven so susceptible throughout our country’s very young life.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

Revisionist History

Revisionist History

Thomas Allen

In response to a comment that I made on “MSNBC’s Revisionist History About JD Vance and America’s Failed Wars,” The New American, by Selwyn Duke, July 22, 2024, (https://thenewamerican.com/us/msnbcs-revisionist-history-about-jd-vance-and-americas-failed-wars/#comment-6515624670), I had an interesting discussion with “Confused” on revisionist history. (I have changed his pseudonym to protect his ignorance or stupidity — whichever the case may be.)

Duke’s misleading statements on revision history prompted my comment. My comment was:

A revisionist history is a history that disagrees with the standard orthodox establishment history. It is a historical account based on facts or a perspective that differs from the standard orthodox establishment history, which emphasizes a particular narrative or agenda instead of objective facts. That is, the primary purpose of the standard orthodox establishment history is to declare that the victors had the moral high ground and were not at fault or to advance an agenda of the establishment. More often than not, revisionist history is closer to the truth than is the standard orthodox establishment history. 

(This comment is a quotation from “Another Discussion with the Imbecile” by Thomas Allen.) The essence of revision history is that it significantly contradicts standard orthodox establishment history.

Duke may be the cause of some of Confused’s confusion about revisionist history. He writes that Alexander Nazaryan, a left-winger, condemned JD Vance over who launched America’s failed wars. Nazaryan attacked Vance and claimed that Vance was accusing Democrats in general and Biden in particular for the death of Americans in the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars, although Vance hardly mentioned these wars and did not blame Democrats for them. Nazaryan identified the Republican Party as the party of war because of Bush the Younger’s war with Iraq. Yet, Nazaryan ignored the wars in which Democrats led the countries: World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. Duke called Nazaryan commentary revisionist history. Nazaryan’s historical account may be revisionist history, but that does not mean that all revisionist historians are left-wingers.

Confused maintains that only left-wingers write revisionist histories; right-wingers do not write revisionist histories. However, since progressives, liberals, and neoconservatives write most standard orthodox establishment history, they have little need to write revisionist history. Consequently, right-wingers write most revisionist history.

Among the right-wing writers of revisionist history are Dennis Cuddy, G. Edward Griffin, Jim Marrs, Jack Mohr, Eustace Mullins, Murray Rothbard, Antony Sutton, Nesta Webster, Clyde Wilson, and even Pat Buchanan. (This list is only a minute sample of right-wingers who have written revisionist histories.) Because these writers have written revisionist history, Confused considers them to be left-wingers, even communists. Following are some examples of revision history.

Standard orthodox establishment history claims that the French Revolution began as a spontaneous grassroots revolt of repressed peasants and proletarians against an oppressive aristocracy, monarchy, and clergy. Revisionist historians argue that the French Revolution was planned years earlier and was guided by elites and secret societies. (See “The French Revolution: Part I: The Foundation” by Thomas Allen.)

Standard orthodox establishment history claims that slavery was the cause, even the sole cause, of Lincoln’s War. The North fought to free the slaves, and the South fought to preserve and even to expand slavery.

Revisionist historians argue that slavery was a minor, even an insignificant issue, until about halfway through the war. Tariffs were the primary cause of secession for the Lower South, and the denial of the constitutional right of a State to secede was the primary cause of secession for the Upper South. (Until 1861, most people, including and especially New Englanders, claimed that States had a right to secede. However, once New Englanders and their allies in New York and the Upper Midwest gained control of the US government, States no longer had a constitutional right to secede.) Thus, the South fought against Northern exploitation, and the North fought to continue to exploit the South. Further, the South fought to preserve self-government and not to protect slavery. Most Southerners fought to repeal an invading hoard; if the Yankees had not invaded the South, no war would have occurred.

Standard orthodox establishment history claims that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack. Revisionist historians say that it was a surprise attack for the people at Pearl Harbor. However, it was not a surprise to Roosevelt and his inner circle. They knew about it before it happened. Not only did they let it happen, but Roosevelt facilitated the attack. (See “World War II” by Thomas Allen.)

Robert Welch, who was a co-founder of the John Birch Society, asserted that President Eisenhower was a Communist sympathizer and an agent of the Communist conspiracy. Standard orthodox establishment historians disagree with Welch.

Standard orthodox establishment history claims that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone assassin. Moreover, no conspiracy was involved in the assassination of President Kennedy. Revisionist historians argue that Oswald did not act alone; others were involved in the assassination, which made it a conspiracy. Furthermore, Oswald may not have been the actual assassin. (For more on the Kennedy assassination, see “A Credibility Test” by Thomas Allen.)

One left-wing revisionist history that has become partially, if not wholly, accepted as standard orthodox establishment history is that slaves in the Catholic Latin colonies were treated better than in the Protestant colonies of North America. This history is the opposite of the truth. Slaves were treated better in Protestant North America.

Another slavery-related left-wing revisionist history has become standard orthodox establishment history. That revisionist history was that slavery was the reason for Lincoln’s War. Many Republican leaders, who were the progressives of that day, promoted this revisionist history. Now, this explanation for the war is the standard orthodox establishment history.

Confused is like Imbecile; any history with which he disagrees is revisionist history. The standard definition of revisionist history, which he rejects, is any explanation of a historical event that disagrees significantly with the standard orthodox establishment explanation. (For more on revisionist history, see https://tcallenco.weebly.com/history.html.)

Discussion in Comments

Me: A revisionist history is a history that disagrees with the standard orthodox establishment history. It is a historical account based on facts or a perspective that differs from the standard orthodox establishment history, which emphasizes a particular narrative or agenda instead of objective facts. That is, the primary purpose of the standard orthodox establishment history is to declare that the victors had the moral high ground and were not at fault or to advance an agenda of the establishment. More often than not, revisionist history is closer to the truth than is the standard orthodox establishment history. https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2024/05/another-discussion-with-imbecile.html

Confused: That’s not correct. “Revisionist history” has a negative connotation and is usually applied to leftist manipulation of history.

There are facts relating to events that have happened. Actual history involves revealing and expressing those facts.

Me: If you are correct and I am wrong, then the official explanation of the Kennedy assassination and 9-11 are accurate, and the revisionists are wrong. Likewise, only revisionist historians claim that the Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election. Also, the conspiratorial history that the JBS [John Birch Society] spews out is revisionist history, and, therefore, it has a negative connotation and is usually applied to manipulate history if you are correct. Most revisionist historians do a better job of discovering and explaining facts relating to historical events than do the standard orthodox establishment historians, whom you seem to prefer to believe.

Confused: Your above analysis is incorrect and illogical.

The problem is semantics. You’re defining “revisionist history” in a very anomalous way. The people you’re describing are conspiracy theorists, who may be right or wrong. Here is the definition of “revisionism”: “1 : a movement in revolutionary Marxian socialism favoring an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary spirit.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revisionism

By calling correct historical interpretations “revisionism” YOU are unwittingly demonizing them by associating them with a negative label. You can do that if you wish, but it’s misguided and unwise.

Please stop hurting the cause.

Me: Your definition is for “revisionism” and not for “revisionist history.” Nevertheless, if you are correct, then people who question the official history of the Kennedy assassination and 9-11 and present an alternative explanation are Marxist socialists.

Confused: Again, that’s illogical. It’s only “revisionist history” if it’s an incorrect portrayal of history put forth to deceive and warp people’s conception of reality. So if the 9/11 doubters are correct, or at least if they’re questioning the official story in good faith, it’s not revisionist history.

Me: I have concluded that you are like Imbecile; any history with which you disagree is revisionist history. The standard definition of revisionist history, which you reject, is any explanation of a historical event that disagrees with the standard orthodox establishment explanation of that event. JBS’s conspiratorial explanation of various historical events is revisionist history, just as a communist class-warfare explanation of the same event is revisionist history.

Confused: Go bake some cookies, hon.

END

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More historical articles.